You cannot negotiate with Iran. That is what they told us for years. The Iranian
leadership is too fanatical, they are not rational actors, they are "not like
us." One US official even recently said that deception is part of the Iranian
DNA. But just over a week ago negotiations between the five permanent UN Security
Council Members plus Germany and the Iranians produced an historic agreement
that may be first step toward a new era in US relations with the Middle East.
As Middle East expert Eric Margolis pointed
out this week, for Iran's major concessions it will only receive "$7
billion - of its own money, which has been frozen abroad by US-led sanctions." That
sounds like quite a bit of compromise for such a "fanatical" country.
Earlier this summer the same people made the same arguments about Syria. You
cannot negotiate with Syrian President Assad, they said. He is insane; he is
another Hitler. But not only was it possible, a deal was signed ending the
threat of a US strike in exchange for Syria agreeing to give up its chemical
weapons and the ability to manufacture new ones. Syria upheld its end of the
agreement and the chemicals were all accounted for on schedule.
Why have the interventionists, the neocons, and the special interest groups
claimed for so long that negotiation and diplomacy was tantamount to surrender;
that countries such as Iran and Syria "only understand force"? It is because
these groups are afraid of diplomacy. They do not want a peaceful resolution
to these conflicts. They see US foreign relations only in the starkest terms:
do what we say and we will give you aid, disobey us and we will bomb you.
Now the warmongers who call themselves "foreign policy experts" have been
exposed. The whole world sees that they are wrong. Their advice is bad. Their
limited vision of how foreign affairs should be conducted is actually dangerous
to the United States. It is now clear that there are workable alternatives.
As with the US threats against Syria, public opinion polls on talks with Iran
demonstrate that the American people are solidly behind diplomacy and opposed
to another war. According to one recent
poll, Americans support the deal reached with Iran by a margin of two-to-one.
Congress, however, is once again far behind the American people. Even as US
negotiators were reaching agreement with their Iranian counterparts, US representatives
and Senators were drafting legislation to increase sanctions on Iran. Instead
of listening to the American people, many in Congress seem attached to special
interests like the Israel and Saudi lobbies, which oppose anything less than
full Iranian capitulation. Israel refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty
yet it seeks to dictate the rules of the treaty to those who have signed it.
Saudi Arabia is desperate to control the region politically and economically,
and it views an Iran that is free to sell oil and other products on the open
market as a threat to Saudi power.
For too long both Israel and the Saudis have benefited from a US military
guarantee. It has created "moral hazard" that only encourages more belligerent
behavior on both of their parts. It remains to be seen whether this six month
trial period will develop into a permanent move toward normalization of relations
with Iran. What if Congress refuses to give Iran its own money back? But we
are moving in the right direction and we should be optimistic.
A better US relationship with Iran may signal the beginning of the end of
US meddling in the region and serve as an incentive for Saudi Arabia, Israel,
and the Gulf States to solve their problems themselves. This would be a great
boost to US national security, just as an Iran open to US business and trade
would be a great boost to our economic security. Is peace finally breaking
out? Let's hope so.
